[2023] KEELRC 253 (KLR)

[2023] KEELRC 253 (KLR)

The court found that the consent order filed on February 16, 2022, specified the outstanding balance and a payment plan in absolute sums, with no provision for additional interest except for a fixed sum in the event of default. The applicant's claim for further interest was not supported by the consent terms. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELRC 253 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Siganga & Co Advocates; Respondent: Secretary, Homa Bay County Assembly Service Board; Respondent: County Secretary, County Government Of Homa Bay; Respondent: County Executive Committee Member Finance, County Government Of Homa Bay
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application 10 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Motion to Review/discharge Contempt Orders
Outcome
Application to review/discharge contempt orders allowed; contempt orders vacated/discharged; each party to bear own costs.
Judges
S Radido
Legal Topics
Advocate Remuneration, Consent Orders, Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Judgments
Source Language
en
Employment and Labour Advocate Remuneration Consent Orders Contempt of Court Enforcement of Judgments

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siganga & Co Advocates

Applicant

Secretary, Homa Bay County Assembly Service Board

Respondent

County Secretary, County Government Of Homa Bay

Respondent

County Executive Committee Member Finance, County Government Of Homa Bay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Motion to Review/discharge Contempt Orders

  1. 1 Whether the respondents satisfied the terms of the consent order regarding payment of legal fees.
  2. 2 Whether the outstanding balance included interest not expressly provided for in the consent.
  3. 3 Whether the contempt orders against the Clerk should be vacated or discharged.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the consent order filed on February 16, 2022, specified the outstanding balance and a payment plan in absolute sums, with no provision for additional interest except for a fixed sum in the event of default. The applicant's claim for further interest was not supported by the consent terms. The respondents had made payments exceeding the consent balance, with the difference explained by withholding tax. As of November 25, 2022, the respondents had satisfied the consent order. Consequently, the contempt orders against the Clerk were vacated/discharged, as the respondents had purged the contempt by complying with the consent. The court clarified that this order applied to...

Court Disposition

Application to review/discharge contempt orders allowed; contempt orders vacated/discharged; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The order issued on October 26, 2022 is vacated/discharged as the respondents have purged the contempt.
  • This order applies in Kisumu Judicial Review Nos. 11, 12, and 13 of 2019.